Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 97 | 57 | 40 |
2nd | 65 | 31 | 34 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 971 | control, N = 571 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 97 | 39.90 ± 17.68 (19 - 148) | 40.28 ± 19.42 (19 - 148) | 39.36 ± 15.09 (21 - 70) | 0.803 |
gender | 97 | 0.246 | |||
female | 69 (71%) | 38 (67%) | 31 (78%) | ||
male | 28 (29%) | 19 (33%) | 9 (22%) | ||
occupation | 97 | 0.565 | |||
civil | 3 (3.1%) | 2 (3.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
clerk | 18 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (8.2%) | 3 (5.3%) | 5 (12%) | ||
manager | 13 (13%) | 9 (16%) | 4 (10%) | ||
other | 10 (10%) | 4 (7.0%) | 6 (15%) | ||
professional | 14 (14%) | 11 (19%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (4.1%) | 2 (3.5%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
service | 4 (4.1%) | 2 (3.5%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
student | 21 (22%) | 14 (25%) | 7 (18%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (1.8%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
working_status | 97 | 62 (64%) | 37 (65%) | 25 (62%) | 0.808 |
marital | 97 | 0.834 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.1%) | 1 (1.8%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
married | 25 (26%) | 15 (26%) | 10 (25%) | ||
single | 68 (70%) | 40 (70%) | 28 (70%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 97 | >0.999 | |||
married | 25 (26%) | 15 (26%) | 10 (25%) | ||
other | 4 (4.1%) | 2 (3.5%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
single | 68 (70%) | 40 (70%) | 28 (70%) | ||
education | 97 | 0.009 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (11%) | 2 (3.5%) | 9 (22%) | ||
post-secondary | 16 (16%) | 12 (21%) | 4 (10%) | ||
university | 70 (72%) | 43 (75%) | 27 (68%) | ||
university_edu | 97 | 70 (72%) | 43 (75%) | 27 (68%) | 0.390 |
family_income | 97 | 0.258 | |||
0_10000 | 11 (11%) | 5 (8.8%) | 6 (15%) | ||
10001_20000 | 20 (21%) | 8 (14%) | 12 (30%) | ||
20001_30000 | 16 (16%) | 11 (19%) | 5 (12%) | ||
30001_40000 | 15 (15%) | 10 (18%) | 5 (12%) | ||
40000_above | 35 (36%) | 23 (40%) | 12 (30%) | ||
high_income | 97 | 50 (52%) | 33 (58%) | 17 (42%) | 0.135 |
religion | 97 | 0.490 | |||
buddhism | 5 (5.2%) | 4 (7.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
catholic | 5 (5.2%) | 2 (3.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
christianity | 36 (37%) | 22 (39%) | 14 (35%) | ||
nil | 49 (51%) | 29 (51%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
religion_r | 97 | >0.999 | |||
christianity | 41 (42%) | 24 (42%) | 17 (42%) | ||
nil | 49 (51%) | 29 (51%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 7 (7.2%) | 4 (7.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
source | 97 | 0.015 | |||
bokss | 40 (41%) | 19 (33%) | 21 (52%) | ||
15 (15%) | 13 (23%) | 2 (5.0%) | |||
6 (6.2%) | 6 (11%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 18 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
refresh | 18 (19%) | 10 (18%) | 8 (20%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 971 | control, N = 571 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 97 | 19.38 ± 2.22 (15 - 25) | 19.04 ± 2.04 (15 - 24) | 19.88 ± 2.40 (15 - 25) | 0.067 |
setv | 97 | 11.20 ± 1.65 (8 - 15) | 11.04 ± 1.57 (8 - 15) | 11.43 ± 1.75 (8 - 15) | 0.254 |
maks | 97 | 44.94 ± 3.81 (36 - 57) | 44.58 ± 3.55 (36 - 52) | 45.45 ± 4.14 (38 - 57) | 0.270 |
ibs | 97 | 15.56 ± 2.20 (9 - 20) | 15.46 ± 2.13 (10 - 20) | 15.70 ± 2.31 (9 - 20) | 0.593 |
ers_e | 97 | 12.21 ± 1.44 (8 - 15) | 12.16 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.28 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 0.695 |
ers_r | 97 | 11.25 ± 1.55 (8 - 15) | 11.09 ± 1.49 (8 - 14) | 11.47 ± 1.63 (8 - 15) | 0.229 |
pss_pa | 97 | 44.94 ± 4.48 (30 - 54) | 44.53 ± 4.28 (30 - 54) | 45.52 ± 4.74 (31 - 54) | 0.282 |
pss_ps | 97 | 25.65 ± 7.33 (12 - 42) | 26.46 ± 7.51 (13 - 42) | 24.50 ± 7.00 (12 - 41) | 0.197 |
pss | 97 | 43.71 ± 11.06 (21 - 72) | 44.93 ± 11.16 (22 - 72) | 41.98 ± 10.83 (21 - 67) | 0.197 |
rki_responsible | 97 | 21.26 ± 3.93 (13 - 29) | 20.95 ± 4.15 (13 - 29) | 21.70 ± 3.60 (14 - 28) | 0.356 |
rki_nonlinear | 97 | 13.39 ± 2.69 (6 - 22) | 13.19 ± 2.50 (6 - 20) | 13.68 ± 2.95 (8 - 22) | 0.388 |
rki_peer | 97 | 20.44 ± 2.12 (16 - 25) | 20.49 ± 2.08 (16 - 25) | 20.38 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 0.792 |
rki_expect | 97 | 4.72 ± 1.07 (2 - 8) | 4.58 ± 1.10 (2 - 8) | 4.92 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 0.117 |
rki | 97 | 59.81 ± 5.80 (45 - 80) | 59.21 ± 5.89 (45 - 76) | 60.67 ± 5.64 (50 - 80) | 0.223 |
raq_possible | 97 | 15.62 ± 1.80 (12 - 20) | 15.68 ± 1.85 (12 - 20) | 15.53 ± 1.74 (12 - 20) | 0.670 |
raq_difficulty | 97 | 12.38 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.39 (9 - 15) | 12.18 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.227 |
raq | 97 | 28.00 ± 2.90 (21 - 35) | 28.21 ± 2.96 (21 - 35) | 27.70 ± 2.84 (21 - 35) | 0.397 |
who | 97 | 14.77 ± 4.39 (6 - 25) | 14.60 ± 4.28 (6 - 25) | 15.03 ± 4.59 (6 - 25) | 0.639 |
phq | 97 | 3.58 ± 3.81 (0 - 18) | 3.67 ± 3.77 (0 - 17) | 3.45 ± 3.92 (0 - 18) | 0.785 |
gad | 97 | 3.16 ± 3.75 (0 - 21) | 3.40 ± 4.14 (0 - 21) | 2.83 ± 3.11 (0 - 12) | 0.457 |
nb_pcs | 97 | 51.17 ± 7.57 (25 - 63) | 51.86 ± 7.23 (25 - 63) | 50.20 ± 8.01 (27 - 61) | 0.291 |
nb_mcs | 97 | 50.62 ± 8.60 (22 - 70) | 50.01 ± 8.85 (22 - 68) | 51.48 ± 8.27 (35 - 70) | 0.410 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.281 | 18.5, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.437 | -0.017, 1.70 | 0.057 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.299 | 0.387 | -1.06, 0.459 | 0.442 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.174 | 0.548 | -0.900, 1.25 | 0.752 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.221 | 10.6, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.390 | 0.345 | -0.285, 1.07 | 0.260 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.209 | 0.265 | -0.310, 0.729 | 0.432 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.123 | 0.373 | -0.854, 0.608 | 0.743 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.6 | 0.517 | 43.6, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.871 | 0.804 | -0.705, 2.45 | 0.281 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.156 | 0.526 | -1.19, 0.875 | 0.768 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.137 | 0.736 | -1.31, 1.58 | 0.853 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.5 | 0.284 | 14.9, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.244 | 0.442 | -0.623, 1.11 | 0.582 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.203 | 0.312 | -0.408, 0.815 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.324 | 0.437 | -0.534, 1.18 | 0.462 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.191 | 11.8, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.117 | 0.297 | -0.464, 0.699 | 0.694 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.512 | 0.210 | -0.924, -0.101 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.645 | 0.294 | 0.069, 1.22 | 0.032 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.193 | 10.7, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.387 | 0.301 | -0.203, 0.978 | 0.201 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.086 | 0.265 | -0.605, 0.434 | 0.747 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.195 | 0.375 | -0.540, 0.931 | 0.604 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.5 | 0.595 | 43.4, 45.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.999 | 0.926 | -0.816, 2.81 | 0.283 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.47 | 0.797 | -3.03, 0.098 | 0.070 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.589 | 1.128 | -1.62, 2.80 | 0.603 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.5 | 0.967 | 24.6, 28.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.96 | 1.505 | -4.91, 0.994 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.41 | 1.153 | -0.851, 3.67 | 0.225 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.42 | 1.621 | -4.60, 1.76 | 0.384 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 44.9 | 1.437 | 42.1, 47.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.95 | 2.238 | -7.34, 1.43 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.85 | 1.678 | -0.444, 6.13 | 0.094 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.96 | 2.358 | -6.58, 2.66 | 0.408 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.9 | 0.523 | 19.9, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.753 | 0.815 | -0.845, 2.35 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.067 | 0.632 | -1.31, 1.17 | 0.916 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.155 | 0.889 | -1.90, 1.59 | 0.862 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.385 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.482 | 0.600 | -0.694, 1.66 | 0.423 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.277 | 0.461 | -1.18, 0.627 | 0.550 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.461 | 0.649 | -0.811, 1.73 | 0.480 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.295 | 19.9, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.116 | 0.459 | -1.02, 0.783 | 0.800 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.094 | 0.373 | -0.637, 0.824 | 0.802 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.189 | 0.525 | -0.841, 1.22 | 0.720 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.58 | 0.133 | 4.32, 4.84 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.346 | 0.208 | -0.061, 0.753 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.017 | 0.197 | -0.369, 0.402 | 0.933 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.177 | 0.280 | -0.372, 0.725 | 0.530 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.2 | 0.785 | 57.7, 60.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.46 | 1.223 | -0.932, 3.86 | 0.233 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.188 | 0.943 | -2.04, 1.66 | 0.842 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.652 | 1.327 | -1.95, 3.25 | 0.625 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.235 | 15.2, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.159 | 0.365 | -0.875, 0.557 | 0.664 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.303 | 0.296 | -0.884, 0.277 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.790 | 0.418 | -0.028, 1.61 | 0.062 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.185 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.351 | 0.288 | -0.916, 0.213 | 0.225 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.107 | 0.230 | -0.557, 0.343 | 0.643 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.343 | 0.324 | -0.292, 0.977 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 0.385 | 27.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.511 | 0.600 | -1.69, 0.665 | 0.396 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.357 | 0.456 | -1.25, 0.538 | 0.437 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.08 | 0.642 | -0.180, 2.33 | 0.097 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.577 | 13.5, 15.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.429 | 0.899 | -1.33, 2.19 | 0.634 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.134 | 0.616 | -1.34, 1.07 | 0.828 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.675 | 0.863 | -1.02, 2.37 | 0.437 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.67 | 0.483 | 2.72, 4.61 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.751 | -1.69, 1.26 | 0.774 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.397 | -0.651, 0.906 | 0.749 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.068 | 0.553 | -1.15, 1.02 | 0.902 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.40 | 0.487 | 2.45, 4.36 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.579 | 0.758 | -2.06, 0.907 | 0.447 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.114 | 0.462 | -0.793, 1.02 | 0.807 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.033 | 0.646 | -1.30, 1.23 | 0.959 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 0.963 | 50.0, 53.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.66 | 1.500 | -4.60, 1.28 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.982 | 0.930 | -2.80, 0.841 | 0.294 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.05 | 1.299 | -0.496, 4.60 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.0 | 1.104 | 47.8, 52.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 1.719 | -1.90, 4.84 | 0.394 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.027 | 1.286 | -2.49, 2.55 | 0.983 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.010 | 1.807 | -3.55, 3.53 | 0.996 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.04 (95% CI [18.48, 19.59], t(156) = 67.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.70], t(156) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-7.85e-03, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.46], t(156) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(156) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.04 (95% CI [10.60, 11.47], t(156) = 49.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.07], t(156) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.73], t(156) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.61], t(156) = -0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.58 (95% CI [43.57, 45.59], t(156) = 86.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.45], t(156) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.88], t(156) = -0.30, p = 0.767; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.58], t(156) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.46 (95% CI [14.90, 16.01], t(156) = 54.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.11], t(156) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.81], t(156) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.18], t(156) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.16 (95% CI [11.78, 12.53], t(156) = 63.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.70], t(156) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.10], t(156) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.07, 1.22], t(156) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.05, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.09 (95% CI [10.71, 11.47], t(156) = 57.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.98], t(156) = 1.29, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.43], t(156) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.93], t(156) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.53 (95% CI [43.36, 45.69], t(156) = 74.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.81], t(156) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.03, 0.10], t(156) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.80], t(156) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.46 (95% CI [24.56, 28.35], t(156) = 27.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.96, 95% CI [-4.91, 0.99], t(156) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.85, 3.67], t(156) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-4.60, 1.76], t(156) = -0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.93 (95% CI [42.11, 47.75], t(156) = 31.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.95, 95% CI [-7.34, 1.43], t(156) = -1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.85, 95% CI [-0.44, 6.13], t(156) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.96, 95% CI [-6.58, 2.66], t(156) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.95 (95% CI [19.92, 21.97], t(156) = 40.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.35], t(156) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.17], t(156) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.90, 1.59], t(156) = -0.17, p = 0.861; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.19 (95% CI [12.44, 13.95], t(156) = 34.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.66], t(156) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.63], t(156) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.73], t(156) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.49 (95% CI [19.91, 21.07], t(156) = 69.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.78], t(156) = -0.25, p = 0.800; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.82], t(156) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.22], t(156) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.58 (95% CI [4.32, 4.84], t(156) = 34.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.75], t(156) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.40], t(156) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.73], t(156) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.21 (95% CI [57.67, 60.75], t(156) = 75.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.93, 3.86], t(156) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.66], t(156) = -0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.95, 3.25], t(156) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [15.22, 16.14], t(156) = 66.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.56], t(156) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.28], t(156) = -1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.61], t(156) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [12.16, 12.89], t(156) = 67.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.21], t(156) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.34], t(156) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.98], t(156) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.21 (95% CI [27.46, 28.97], t(156) = 73.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.66], t(156) = -0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.54], t(156) = -0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.33], t(156) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.60 (95% CI [13.47, 15.73], t(156) = 25.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.19], t(156) = 0.48, p = 0.634; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.07], t(156) = -0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.37], t(156) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.67 (95% CI [2.72, 4.61], t(156) = 7.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.26], t(156) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.91], t(156) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.02], t(156) = -0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.40 (95% CI [2.45, 4.36], t(156) = 6.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.91], t(156) = -0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.02], t(156) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.23], t(156) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -9.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.86 (95% CI [49.97, 53.74], t(156) = 53.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.60, 1.28], t(156) = -1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.80, 0.84], t(156) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 4.60], t(156) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.01 (95% CI [47.85, 52.18], t(156) = 45.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.90, 4.84], t(156) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.55], t(156) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 3.30e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.95e-03, 95% CI [-3.55, 3.53], t(156) = -5.51e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = -1.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 699.516 | 708.779 | -346.758 | 693.516 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 699.541 | 718.067 | -343.771 | 687.541 | 5.975 | 3 | 0.113 |
setv | null | 3 | 604.947 | 614.210 | -299.473 | 598.947 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 608.833 | 627.359 | -298.417 | 596.833 | 2.114 | 3 | 0.549 |
maks | null | 3 | 860.921 | 870.184 | -427.460 | 854.921 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 865.372 | 883.898 | -426.686 | 853.372 | 1.548 | 3 | 0.671 |
ibs | null | 3 | 678.506 | 687.769 | -336.253 | 672.506 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 680.104 | 698.630 | -334.052 | 668.104 | 4.402 | 3 | 0.221 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 552.731 | 561.994 | -273.366 | 546.731 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 551.065 | 569.591 | -269.533 | 539.065 | 7.666 | 3 | 0.053 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 575.868 | 585.130 | -284.934 | 569.868 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 578.487 | 597.013 | -283.244 | 566.487 | 3.380 | 3 | 0.337 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 940.630 | 949.893 | -467.315 | 934.630 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 940.325 | 958.851 | -464.163 | 928.325 | 6.305 | 3 | 0.098 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,084.490 | 1,093.753 | -539.245 | 1,078.490 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,085.966 | 1,104.491 | -536.983 | 1,073.966 | 4.525 | 3 | 0.210 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,212.215 | 1,221.478 | -603.107 | 1,206.215 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,212.251 | 1,230.776 | -600.125 | 1,200.251 | 5.964 | 3 | 0.113 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 883.481 | 892.743 | -438.740 | 877.481 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 888.498 | 907.023 | -438.249 | 876.498 | 0.983 | 3 | 0.805 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 784.338 | 793.601 | -389.169 | 778.338 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 788.388 | 806.914 | -388.194 | 776.388 | 1.949 | 3 | 0.583 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 701.708 | 710.970 | -347.854 | 695.708 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 707.044 | 725.570 | -347.522 | 695.044 | 0.663 | 3 | 0.882 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 464.700 | 473.962 | -229.350 | 458.700 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 463.889 | 482.414 | -225.944 | 451.889 | 6.811 | 3 | 0.078 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,016.078 | 1,025.341 | -505.039 | 1,010.078 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 1,019.367 | 1,037.893 | -503.683 | 1,007.367 | 2.712 | 3 | 0.438 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 631.148 | 640.411 | -312.574 | 625.148 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 633.112 | 651.637 | -310.556 | 621.112 | 4.036 | 3 | 0.258 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 550.528 | 559.791 | -272.264 | 544.528 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 554.525 | 573.050 | -271.262 | 542.525 | 2.003 | 3 | 0.572 |
raq | null | 3 | 784.306 | 793.569 | -389.153 | 778.306 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 787.068 | 805.594 | -387.534 | 775.068 | 3.237 | 3 | 0.356 |
who | null | 3 | 902.299 | 911.562 | -448.150 | 896.299 | |||
who | random | 6 | 906.717 | 925.243 | -447.358 | 894.717 | 1.582 | 3 | 0.663 |
phq | null | 3 | 812.265 | 821.528 | -403.133 | 806.265 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 818.035 | 836.561 | -403.018 | 806.035 | 0.230 | 3 | 0.973 |
gad | null | 3 | 832.719 | 841.982 | -413.359 | 826.719 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 837.975 | 856.500 | -412.987 | 825.975 | 0.744 | 3 | 0.863 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,057.974 | 1,067.237 | -525.987 | 1,051.974 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,061.019 | 1,079.544 | -524.509 | 1,049.019 | 2.956 | 3 | 0.399 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,121.338 | 1,130.600 | -557.669 | 1,115.338 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,126.455 | 1,144.981 | -557.228 | 1,114.455 | 0.882 | 3 | 0.830 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 57 | 19.04 ± 2.12 | 40 | 19.87 ± 2.12 | 0.057 | -0.513 | ||
sets | 2nd | 31 | 18.74 ± 2.05 | 0.182 | 34 | 19.75 ± 2.10 | 0.076 | 0.051 | -0.619 |
setv | 1st | 57 | 11.04 ± 1.67 | 40 | 11.42 ± 1.67 | 0.260 | -0.354 | ||
setv | 2nd | 31 | 11.24 ± 1.55 | -0.190 | 34 | 11.51 ± 1.63 | -0.079 | 0.500 | -0.243 |
maks | 1st | 57 | 44.58 ± 3.90 | 40 | 45.45 ± 3.90 | 0.281 | -0.406 | ||
maks | 2nd | 31 | 44.42 ± 3.45 | 0.073 | 34 | 45.43 ± 3.76 | 0.009 | 0.261 | -0.470 |
ibs | 1st | 57 | 15.46 ± 2.14 | 40 | 15.70 ± 2.14 | 0.582 | -0.190 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 31 | 15.66 ± 1.94 | -0.159 | 34 | 16.23 ± 2.08 | -0.411 | 0.256 | -0.443 |
ers_e | 1st | 57 | 12.16 ± 1.44 | 40 | 12.27 ± 1.44 | 0.694 | -0.136 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 31 | 11.65 ± 1.30 | 0.595 | 34 | 12.41 ± 1.39 | -0.154 | 0.024 | -0.885 |
ers_r | 1st | 57 | 11.09 ± 1.46 | 40 | 11.47 ± 1.46 | 0.201 | -0.345 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 31 | 11.00 ± 1.41 | 0.076 | 34 | 11.58 ± 1.44 | -0.098 | 0.102 | -0.520 |
pss_pa | 1st | 57 | 44.53 ± 4.49 | 40 | 45.53 ± 4.49 | 0.283 | -0.297 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 31 | 43.06 ± 4.31 | 0.436 | 34 | 44.65 ± 4.43 | 0.261 | 0.145 | -0.472 |
pss_ps | 1st | 57 | 26.46 ± 7.30 | 40 | 24.50 ± 7.30 | 0.196 | 0.409 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 31 | 27.86 ± 6.76 | -0.295 | 34 | 24.49 ± 7.12 | 0.003 | 0.052 | 0.707 |
pss | 1st | 57 | 44.93 ± 10.85 | 40 | 41.98 ± 10.85 | 0.189 | 0.426 | ||
pss | 2nd | 31 | 47.78 ± 9.98 | -0.410 | 34 | 42.86 ± 10.57 | -0.127 | 0.056 | 0.709 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 57 | 20.95 ± 3.95 | 40 | 21.70 ± 3.95 | 0.357 | -0.287 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 31 | 20.88 ± 3.67 | 0.026 | 34 | 21.48 ± 3.86 | 0.085 | 0.524 | -0.228 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 57 | 13.19 ± 2.91 | 40 | 13.68 ± 2.91 | 0.423 | -0.252 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 31 | 12.92 ± 2.70 | 0.145 | 34 | 13.86 ± 2.84 | -0.096 | 0.172 | -0.493 |
rki_peer | 1st | 57 | 20.49 ± 2.22 | 40 | 20.37 ± 2.22 | 0.800 | 0.075 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 31 | 20.59 ± 2.10 | -0.060 | 34 | 20.66 ± 2.18 | -0.182 | 0.891 | -0.047 |
rki_expect | 1st | 57 | 4.58 ± 1.01 | 40 | 4.92 ± 1.01 | 0.098 | -0.410 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 31 | 4.60 ± 0.99 | -0.020 | 34 | 5.12 ± 1.00 | -0.229 | 0.036 | -0.619 |
rki | 1st | 57 | 59.21 ± 5.93 | 40 | 60.67 ± 5.93 | 0.233 | -0.374 | ||
rki | 2nd | 31 | 59.02 ± 5.50 | 0.048 | 34 | 61.14 ± 5.79 | -0.118 | 0.133 | -0.541 |
raq_possible | 1st | 57 | 15.68 ± 1.77 | 40 | 15.52 ± 1.77 | 0.664 | 0.129 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 31 | 15.38 ± 1.67 | 0.245 | 34 | 16.01 ± 1.74 | -0.394 | 0.137 | -0.510 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 57 | 12.53 ± 1.40 | 40 | 12.18 ± 1.40 | 0.225 | 0.367 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 31 | 12.42 ± 1.31 | 0.112 | 34 | 12.41 ± 1.37 | -0.247 | 0.980 | 0.009 |
raq | 1st | 57 | 28.21 ± 2.91 | 40 | 27.70 ± 2.91 | 0.396 | 0.270 | ||
raq | 2nd | 31 | 27.85 ± 2.69 | 0.189 | 34 | 28.42 ± 2.84 | -0.381 | 0.409 | -0.300 |
who | 1st | 57 | 14.60 ± 4.36 | 40 | 15.02 ± 4.36 | 0.634 | -0.170 | ||
who | 2nd | 31 | 14.46 ± 3.90 | 0.053 | 34 | 15.57 ± 4.21 | -0.214 | 0.275 | -0.437 |
phq | 1st | 57 | 3.67 ± 3.64 | 40 | 3.45 ± 3.64 | 0.774 | 0.135 | ||
phq | 2nd | 31 | 3.79 ± 3.06 | -0.080 | 34 | 3.51 ± 3.46 | -0.037 | 0.725 | 0.178 |
gad | 1st | 57 | 3.40 ± 3.67 | 40 | 2.82 ± 3.67 | 0.447 | 0.308 | ||
gad | 2nd | 31 | 3.52 ± 3.19 | -0.061 | 34 | 2.91 ± 3.52 | -0.043 | 0.464 | 0.326 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 57 | 51.86 ± 7.27 | 40 | 50.20 ± 7.27 | 0.272 | 0.438 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 31 | 50.88 ± 6.34 | 0.260 | 34 | 51.27 ± 6.98 | -0.283 | 0.812 | -0.104 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 57 | 50.01 ± 8.33 | 40 | 51.48 ± 8.33 | 0.394 | -0.277 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 31 | 50.04 ± 7.66 | -0.005 | 34 | 51.50 ± 8.12 | -0.003 | 0.457 | -0.275 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(140.40) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.70)
2st
t(156.07) = 1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.03)
setv
1st
t(127.40) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.07)
2st
t(151.77) = 0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.05)
maks
1st
t(116.80) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.46)
2st
t(143.80) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.77)
ibs
1st
t(121.18) = 0.55, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.12)
2st
t(147.81) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.55)
ers_e
1st
t(121.31) = 0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.70)
2st
t(147.91) = 2.28, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.42)
ers_r
1st
t(139.81) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.98)
2st
t(155.95) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.28)
pss_pa
1st
t(137.60) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.83)
2st
t(155.45) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.73)
pss_ps
1st
t(126.98) = -1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-4.93 to 1.02)
2st
t(151.56) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-6.78 to 0.03)
pss
1st
t(125.35) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-7.38 to 1.48)
2st
t(150.66) = -1.93, p = 0.056, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-9.96 to 0.12)
rki_responsible
1st
t(128.00) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.37)
2st
t(152.07) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.44)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(127.30) = 0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.67)
2st
t(151.72) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.30)
rki_peer
1st
t(131.99) = -0.25, p = 0.800, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.79)
2st
t(153.76) = 0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.12)
rki_expect
1st
t(147.87) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.76)
2st
t(157.21) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.01)
rki
1st
t(127.56) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.88)
2st
t(151.85) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.65 to 4.88)
raq_possible
1st
t(131.84) = -0.44, p = 0.664, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.56)
2st
t(153.70) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.47)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(130.32) = -1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.22)
2st
t(153.11) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.65)
raq
1st
t(126.50) = -0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.68)
2st
t(151.30) = 0.83, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.92)
who
1st
t(119.42) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.21)
2st
t(146.34) = 1.10, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.09)
phq
1st
t(108.30) = -0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.27)
2st
t(131.66) = -0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.31)
gad
1st
t(113.49) = -0.76, p = 0.447, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.92)
2st
t(139.86) = -0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.03)
nb_pcs
1st
t(114.22) = -1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-4.63 to 1.31)
2st
t(140.81) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.66)
nb_mcs
1st
t(125.19) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.93 to 4.87)
2st
t(150.56) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.41 to 5.33)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(70.13) = -0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.65)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(67.87) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.61)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(66.23) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.01)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(66.89) = 1.72, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.14)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(66.91) = 0.64, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.54)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(70.02) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.64)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(69.61) = -1.10, p = 0.277, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.47 to 0.72)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(67.80) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.29 to 2.27)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(67.54) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.43 to 4.19)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(67.96) = -0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.03)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(67.85) = 0.40, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.10)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(68.62) = 0.76, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.02)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(71.76) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.59)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(67.89) = 0.50, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.33)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(68.59) = 1.65, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.08)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(68.34) = 1.03, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.69)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(67.72) = 1.60, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.62)
who
1st vs 2st
t(66.62) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.75)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(64.97) = 0.15, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.83)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(65.73) = 0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.98)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(65.84) = 1.18, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.88)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(67.51) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.55)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(83.21) = -0.77, p = 0.444, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.47)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(77.20) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.74)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(72.59) = -0.30, p = 0.769, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.90)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(74.48) = 0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.83)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(74.54) = -2.43, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-0.93 to -0.09)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(82.92) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.44)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(81.85) = -1.83, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.06 to 0.13)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(77.02) = 1.22, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.71)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(76.30) = 1.69, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.51 to 6.20)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(77.47) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.20)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(77.16) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.65)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(79.25) = 0.25, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.84)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(87.18) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.41)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(77.27) = -0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.07 to 1.70)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(79.18) = -1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.29)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(78.50) = -0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.35)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(76.80) = -0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.56)
who
1st vs 2st
t(73.72) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.10)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(68.91) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.92)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(71.16) = 0.24, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.04)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(71.48) = -1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.88)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(76.23) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.54 to 2.60)